I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498

The second paragraph of the article says:

"Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
shredded by a leak. "

Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors, but
something else is missing.

Please help this reader make sense of the world.

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:27:56 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:

> I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
>
> The second paragraph of the article says:
>
> "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> shredded by a leak. "
>
> Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors, but
> something else is missing.
>
> Please help this reader make sense of the world.

Supply "was" before "shredded," if you object to colorful writing
in factual journalism.

As well you ought.

Colorful writing in the daily press is usually confined to the sports
pages and the opinion pages (including reviews).

Henry Fowler wrote a classic work a century ago intended
exactly for practitioners of "colorful" journalism.

Have the essays on BBC web pages been broadcast, or do they
also maintain a "print"-only medium?

On 2023-09-19 23:27, occam wrote:
>
> I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
>
> The second paragraph of the article says:
>
> "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> shredded by a leak. "
>
>
> Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors, but
> something else is missing.
>
> Please help this reader make sense of the world.
'
I take that as headlinese for.

"Someone leaked the PM's plans, causing the PM some problems."

--
Golf is a game invented by the same people who think music
comes out of a bagpipe.

On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:27:56 PM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
>
> The second paragraph of the article says:
>
> "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> shredded by a leak. "
>
>
> Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors,

Not counting the dead metaphor "leak" and the dead metonymy "Downing
Street", but I think "leak" adds to the ludicrousness.

> but something else is missing.
>
> Please help this reader make sense of the world.

It might be easier to understand as

"Governments hate it when they lose control of what they plan to say
and when.

"And that is precisely what happened last night when we revealed that
Rishi Sunak is considering weakening some of the government's key
green commitments: Downing Street's choreography, their grid of
planned announcements, shredded by a leak."

--
Jerry Friedman

On 20/09/2023 18:45, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2023-09-19 23:27, occam wrote:
>>
>> I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
>>
>> The second paragraph of the article says:
>>
>> "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
>> shredded by a leak. "
>>
>>
>> Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors, but
>> something else is missing.
>>
>> Please help this reader make sense of the world.
> '
> I take that as headlinese for.
>
> "Someone leaked the PM's plans, causing the PM some problems."
>

I'd forgive them if it was a headline.

Given it's position in the article however, I'm having difficulties with
forgiveness.

Le mercredi 20 septembre 2023 à 16:46:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:27:56 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
>
> > I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
> >
> > The second paragraph of the article says:
> >
> > "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> > shredded by a leak. "
> >
> > Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors, but
> > something else is missing.
> >
> > Please help this reader make sense of the world.
> Supply "was" before "shredded," if you object to colorful writing
> in factual journalism.

As noted elsewhere, the paragraph discussed would be more suitable as a
headline. (I first thought it was one, BTW.)

Also, the construction is ambiguous in that it's unclear whether "their grid of
planned announcements" is the 'choreography' itself (apposition) or distinct
therefrom, with an "and" (... _and_ their grid...)" missing (asyndeton).

>
> As well you ought.
>
> Colorful writing in the daily press is usually confined to the sports
> pages and the opinion pages (including reviews).
>
> Henry Fowler wrote a classic work a century ago intended
> exactly for practitioners of "colorful" journalism.
>
> Have the essays on BBC web pages been broadcast, or do they
> also maintain a "print"-only medium?

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 8:41:20 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 20 septembre 2023 à 16:46:43 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:27:56 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> >
> > > I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> > > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
> > >
> > > The second paragraph of the article says:
> > >
> > > "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> > > shredded by a leak. "
> > >
> > > Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors, but
> > > something else is missing.
> > >
> > > Please help this reader make sense of the world.
> > Supply "was" before "shredded," if you object to colorful writing
> > in factual journalism.
>
> As noted elsewhere, the paragraph discussed would be more suitable as a
> headline. (I first thought it was one, BTW.)
>
> Also, the construction is ambiguous in that it's unclear whether "their grid of
> planned announcements" is the 'choreography' itself (apposition) or distinct
> therefrom, with an "and" (... _and_ their grid...)" missing (asyndeton).

You should have gone on to read my next two sentences:

> > As well you ought.
> >
> > Colorful writing in the daily press is usually confined to the sports
> > pages and the opinion pages (including reviews).
> >
> > Henry Fowler wrote a classic work a century ago intended
> > exactly for practitioners of "colorful" journalism.
> >
> > Have the essays on BBC web pages been broadcast, or do they
> > also maintain a "print"-only medium?

Le mercredi 20 septembre 2023 à 19:46:08 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:27:56 PM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> > I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
> >
> > The second paragraph of the article says:
> >
> > "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> > shredded by a leak. "
> >
> >
> > Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors,
> Not counting the dead metaphor "leak" and the dead metonymy "Downing
> Street",

The metonoymy doesn't seem to be "dead", since the British Prime Minister
still lives at 10 Downing Street, so that the connexion between the address
and the British Prime Minister (and by extension the British Government) is
still current and direct.

By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
know its origin.

---
Of course, "sailors" is also a metonymy. The men who worked on ships with sails
were identified by their characteristic work--raising and lowering sails. In a world
of motorized ships, the term has no metonymic meaning. It has become a dead
metonymy.

https://hartzog.org/j/metonymy.html
---

> but I think "leak" adds to the ludicrousness.
> > but something else is missing.
> >
> > Please help this reader make sense of the world.
> It might be easier to understand as
>
> "Governments hate it when they lose control of what they plan to say
> and when.
>
> "And that is precisely what happened last night when we revealed that
> Rishi Sunak is considering weakening some of the government's key
> green commitments: Downing Street's choreography, their grid of
> planned announcements, shredded by a leak."
> --
> Jerry Friedman

Bebercito wrote:

> Of course, "sailors" is also a metonymy. The men who worked on ships with sails
> were identified by their characteristic work--raising and lowering sails. In a world
> of motorized ships, the term has no metonymic meaning. It has become a dead
> metonymy.

Sailing in Denmark is quite popular, and most of the private ships by
far have sails.

--
Bertel, Denmark

Le vendredi 22 septembre 2023 à 18:25:32 UTC+2, Bertel Lund Hansen a écrit :
> Bebercito wrote:
>
> > Of course, "sailors" is also a metonymy. The men who worked on ships with sails
> > were identified by their characteristic work--raising and lowering sails. In a world
> > of motorized ships, the term has no metonymic meaning. It has become a dead
> > metonymy.
> Sailing in Denmark is quite popular, and most of the private ships by
> far have sails.

I agree that this example I found googling "dead metonymy" is not convincing.
Hence I chose to replace it by another, more illustrative one of my own, but forgot
to redact it from my post.

>
> --
> Bertel, Denmark

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> Le mercredi 20 septembre 2023 à 19:46:08 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:27:56 PM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> > > I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> > > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
> > >
> > > The second paragraph of the article says:
> > >
> > > "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> > > shredded by a leak. "
> > >
> > >
> > > Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors,
> >
> > Not counting the dead metaphor "leak" and the dead metonymy "Downing
> > Street",
>
> The metonymy doesn't seem to be "dead", since the British Prime Minister
> still lives at 10 Downing Street, so that the connexion between the address
> and the British Prime Minister (and by extension the British Government) is
> still current and direct.

I meant "dead" in the sense that "leak" is a "dead metaphor", that is, a metaphor
that's now felt as a natural way of saying something rather than as a figure of
speech.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/dead-metaphor

> By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> know its origin.
....

Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
"sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
of them are aware of the origins.

--
Jerry Friedman

Jerry Friedman submitted this gripping article, maybe on Friday:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
>> Le mercredi 20 septembre 2023 à 19:46:08 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
>>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:27:56 PM UTC-6, occam wrote:
>>>> I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
>>>>
>>>> The second paragraph of the article says:
>>>>
>>>> "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
>>>> shredded by a leak. "
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors,
>>>
>>> Not counting the dead metaphor "leak" and the dead metonymy "Downing
>>> Street",
>>
>> The metonymy doesn't seem to be "dead", since the British Prime Minister
>> still lives at 10 Downing Street, so that the connexion between the address
>> and the British Prime Minister (and by extension the British Government) is
>> still current and direct.
>
> I meant "dead" in the sense that "leak" is a "dead metaphor", that is, a
> metaphor that's now felt as a natural way of saying something rather than as
> a figure of speech.
>
> https://www.masterclass.com/articles/dead-metaphor
>
>> By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
>> metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
>> ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
>> know its origin.
> ...
>
> Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> of them are aware of the origins.

Okay, so why did the Greeks have different footwear for tragedy and
comedy? [tragedy vs comedy? tragedy than comedy?]

/dps (bringing in the pants) "Eumenides?" "Euripides?"

--
Trust, but verify.

Le 20/09/2023 à 06:27, occam a écrit :
>
> I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
>
> The second paragraph of the article says:
>
> "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> shredded by a leak. "
>
> Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors, but
> something else is missing.
>
> Please help this reader make sense of the world.

I think the whole article is abominably written.

"Some close observers of the government approach on energy, industry and
green commitments wonder if the original plan was a speech full of
incentives rather than rules. Help rather than targets.

"We shall see. That, for now, has been knocked off course by a leak No10
never sought to deny the accuracy of. [...]"

"Make no mistake, this will grab attention, provoke argument, seize the
agenda - just what a prime minister in a hole in the polls feels the
need to do."

Etc.. A prime minister in a poll-hole? Doesn't sound good.

Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le mercredi 20 septembre 2023 à 19:46:08 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:27:56 PM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> > > > I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> > > > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
> > > >
> > > > The second paragraph of the article says:
> > > >
> > > > "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> > > > shredded by a leak. "
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors,
> > >
> > > Not counting the dead metaphor "leak" and the dead metonymy "Downing
> > > Street",
> >
> > The metonymy doesn't seem to be "dead", since the British Prime Minister
> > still lives at 10 Downing Street, so that the connexion between the address
> > and the British Prime Minister (and by extension the British Government) is
> > still current and direct.
> I meant "dead" in the sense that "leak" is a "dead metaphor", that is, a metaphor
> that's now felt as a natural way of saying something rather than as a figure of
> speech.

Indeed. I knew that definition of "dead" for "dead metaphor and I thought of
that too. However, IMO, the issue is a bit different with metonymies, as these
are much harder to coin than metaphors and the existing ones all seem to
have a historical usage. I've tried to come up with a metonymy that was not
"dead" by that standard and found it very hard, unlike coining a metaphor,
which can be done at will by anyone. Consequently, all metonymies can
arguably be considered dead, and "dead metonymy" is somehow pleonastic
with that meaning of "dead" - which is precisely why I googled to find out
whether "dead metonymy" could have a different, specific meaning.

>
> https://www.masterclass.com/articles/dead-metaphor
> > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > know its origin.
> ...
>
> Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> of them are aware of the origins.

Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.

>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le mercredi 20 septembre 2023 à 19:46:08 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:27:56 PM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> > > > > I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> > > > > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
> > > > >
> > > > > The second paragraph of the article says:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> > > > > shredded by a leak. "
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors,
> > > >
> > > > Not counting the dead metaphor "leak" and the dead metonymy "Downing
> > > > Street",
> > >
> > > The metonymy doesn't seem to be "dead", since the British Prime Minister
> > > still lives at 10 Downing Street, so that the connexion between the address
> > > and the British Prime Minister (and by extension the British Government) is
> > > still current and direct.
> > I meant "dead" in the sense that "leak" is a "dead metaphor", that is, a metaphor
> > that's now felt as a natural way of saying something rather than as a figure of
> > speech.

> Indeed. I knew that definition of "dead" for "dead metaphor and I thought of
> that too. However, IMO, the issue is a bit different with metonymies, as these
> are much harder to coin than metaphors and the existing ones all seem to
> have a historical usage. I've tried to come up with a metonymy that was not
> "dead" by that standard and found it very hard, unlike coining a metaphor,
> which can be done at will by anyone. Consequently, all metonymies can
> arguably be considered dead, and "dead metonymy" is somehow pleonastic
> with that meaning of "dead" - which is precisely why I googled to find out
> whether "dead metonymy" could have a different, specific meaning.

You just have to come up with a metonymy for something recent. "The Wall
Street Journal savagely mocked the Florida Orange in an editorial" (adapted
from a line in the HuffPost) or "Rocket Man announced a new strategy for
Tesla today."

However, a dead metaphor is very different from a good original one, because
a good metaphor surprises you with an unexpected connection. A metonymy
has to be based on an existing connection, so it doesn't lose any surprise
value when it "dies".

> > https://www.masterclass.com/articles/dead-metaphor
> > > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > > know its origin.
> > ...
> >
> > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > of them are aware of the origins.

> Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
> buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
> the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.

My point is that based on one datum (me), I don't think you were right to say
that "those who use the phrase may not even know its origin".

--
Jerry Friedman

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:

> > > > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > > > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > > > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > > > know its origin.
> > > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > > of them are aware of the origins.
> > Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
> > buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
> > the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.
>
> My point is that based on one datum (me), I don't think you were right to say
> that "those who use the phrase may not even know its origin".

And some have never encountered the phrase. As usual, bebe.. trafficks
in obsolete archaisms.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wear+the+sock+and+buskin&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

There are so few occurrences it doesn't even offer links to time periods.

Searching the phrase (in quotes) in GooBoo turns up one use as late
as 1912; anything more recent is a quotation, as in a biography of
Edwin Booth.

Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 16:01:37 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le mercredi 20 septembre 2023 à 19:46:08 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > > > On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:27:56 PM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> > > > > > I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> > > > > > https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The second paragraph of the article says:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> > > > > > shredded by a leak. "
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors,
> > > > >
> > > > > Not counting the dead metaphor "leak" and the dead metonymy "Downing
> > > > > Street",
> > > >
> > > > The metonymy doesn't seem to be "dead", since the British Prime Minister
> > > > still lives at 10 Downing Street, so that the connexion between the address
> > > > and the British Prime Minister (and by extension the British Government) is
> > > > still current and direct.
> > > I meant "dead" in the sense that "leak" is a "dead metaphor", that is, a metaphor
> > > that's now felt as a natural way of saying something rather than as a figure of
> > > speech.
>
> > Indeed. I knew that definition of "dead" for "dead metaphor and I thought of
> > that too. However, IMO, the issue is a bit different with metonymies, as these
> > are much harder to coin than metaphors and the existing ones all seem to
> > have a historical usage. I've tried to come up with a Mmetonymy that was not
> > "dead" by that standard and found it very hard, unlike coining a metaphor,
> > which can be done at will by anyone. Consequently, all metonymies can
> > arguably be considered dead, and "dead metonymy" is somehow pleonastic
> > with that meaning of "dead" - which is precisely why I googled to find out
> > whether "dead metonymy" could have a different, specific meaning.
> You just have to come up with a metonymy for something recent. "The Wall
> Street Journal savagely mocked the Florida Orange in an editorial" (adapted
> from a line in the HuffPost) or "Rocket Man announced a new strategy for
> Tesla today."

Maybe an important distinction should be made between common and proper
nouns here, as metonymies that could be deemed "dead" (by the "dead metaphor"
standard) are the likes of "soul" (as in e.g. "a city of a thousand souls"), "tongue"
(for "language"), "blue/white collars", etc., as their referents are well-known to all,
making them the more trivial and thus the more "mortal". (And they are of the kind
I think may be harder to create from scratch.)

>
> However, a dead metaphor is very different from a good original one, because
> a good metaphor surprises you with an unexpected connection. A metonymy
> has to be based on an existing connection, so it doesn't lose any surprise
> value when it "dies".
> > > https://www.masterclass.com/articles/dead-metaphor
> > > > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > > > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > > > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > > > know its origin.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > > of them are aware of the origins.
>
> > Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
> > buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
> > the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.
> My point is that based on one datum (me), I don't think you were right to say
> that "those who use the phrase may not even know its origin".
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 17:10:50 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
>
> > > > > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > > > > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > > > > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > > > > know its origin.
> > > > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > > > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > > > of them are aware of the origins.
> > > Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
> > > buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
> > > the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.
> >
> > My point is that based on one datum (me), I don't think you were right to say
> > that "those who use the phrase may not even know its origin".
> And some

(...ignoramuses ...)

> have never encountered the phrase. As usual, bebe..

> trafficks

Oy!
> in obsolete archaisms.

Oy!
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wear+the+sock+and+buskin&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
>
> There are so few occurrences it doesn't even offer links to time periods.
>
> Searching the phrase (in quotes) in GooBoo turns up one use as late
> as 1912; anything more recent is a quotation, as in a biography of
> Edwin Booth.

Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 09:31:41 UTC+2, Snidely a écrit :
> Jerry Friedman submitted this gripping article, maybe on Friday:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> >> Le mercredi 20 septembre 2023 à 19:46:08 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> >>> On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 11:27:56 PM UTC-6, occam wrote:
> >>>> I was reading a news item on the BBC web site:
> >>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66862498
> >>>>
> >>>> The second paragraph of the article says:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Downing Street's choreography, their grid of planned announcements,
> >>>> shredded by a leak. "
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I missing something? Not only there is a mix of three metaphors,
> >>>
> >>> Not counting the dead metaphor "leak" and the dead metonymy "Downing
> >>> Street",
> >>
> >> The metonymy doesn't seem to be "dead", since the British Prime Minister
> >> still lives at 10 Downing Street, so that the connexion between the address
> >> and the British Prime Minister (and by extension the British Government) is
> >> still current and direct.
> >
> > I meant "dead" in the sense that "leak" is a "dead metaphor", that is, a
> > metaphor that's now felt as a natural way of saying something rather than as
> > a figure of speech.
> >
> > https://www.masterclass.com/articles/dead-metaphor
> >
> >> By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> >> metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> >> ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> >> know its origin.
> > ...
> >
> > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > of them are aware of the origins.
> Okay, so why did the Greeks have different footwear for tragedy and
> comedy? [tragedy vs comedy? tragedy than comedy?]

Arbitrary codes, just like, for instance, stock characters are represented using
different, specific masks in Japanese Noh theater.

>
> /dps (bringing in the pants) "Eumenides?" "Euripides?"
>
> --
> Trust, but verify.

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:01:28 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 17:10:50 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:

> > > > > > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > > > > > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > > > > > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > > > > > know its origin.
> > > > > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > > > > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > > > > of them are aware of the origins.
> > > > Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
> > > > buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
> > > > the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.
> > > My point is that based on one datum (me), I don't think you were right to say
> > > that "those who use the phrase may not even know its origin".
> > And some
>
> (...ignoramuses ...)

Bullcrap. Did you look at the Ngram?

> > have never encountered the phrase. As usual, bebe..
>
> > trafficks
>
> Oy!

Do you know that that's an example of a quasi-archaism? (Some
-ic words routinely retain the -k- with a front-vowel suffix.)

> > in obsolete archaisms.
>
> Oy!

Did you look at the Ngram?

> > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wear+the+sock+and+buskin&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> >
> > There are so few occurrences it doesn't even offer links to time periods.
> >
> > Searching the phrase (in quotes) in GooBoo turns up one use as late
> > as 1912; anything more recent is a quotation, as in a biography of
> > Edwin Booth.

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:12:17 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 09:31:41 UTC+2, Snidely a écrit :
> > Jerry Friedman submitted this gripping article, maybe on Friday:
> > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:

> > >> By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > >> metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > >> ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > >> know its origin.
> > > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > > of them are aware of the origins.
> > Okay, so why did the Greeks have different footwear for tragedy and
> > comedy? [tragedy vs comedy? tragedy than comedy?]
>
> Arbitrary codes, just like, for instance, stock characters are represented using
> different, specific masks in Japanese Noh theater.

You could have stayed firmly in Western Classical culture, with the
"comedy and tragedy masks": still widely used a a symbol for "drama."

Le dimanche 24 septembre 2023 à 15:09:18 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:01:28 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 17:10:50 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > > > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
>
> > > > > > > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > > > > > > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > > > > > > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > > > > > > know its origin.
> > > > > > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > > > > > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > > > > > of them are aware of the origins.
> > > > > Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
> > > > > buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
> > > > > the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.
> > > > My point is that based on one datum (me), I don't think you were right to say
> > > > that "those who use the phrase may not even know its origin".
> > > And some
> >
> > (...ignoramuses ...)
> Bullcrap. Did you look at the Ngram?
> > > have never encountered the phrase. As usual, bebe..
> >
> > > trafficks
> >
> > Oy!
> Do you know that that's an example of a quasi-archaism? (Some
> -ic words routinely retain the -k- with a front-vowel suffix.)

Nouns, not verbs.
>
> > > in obsolete archaisms.
> >
> > Oy!
>
> Did you look at the Ngram?

At issue is the pleonasm.

> > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wear+the+sock+and+buskin&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> > >
> > > There are so few occurrences it doesn't even offer links to time periods.
> > >
> > > Searching the phrase (in quotes) in GooBoo turns up one use as late
> > > as 1912; anything more recent is a quotation, as in a biography of
> > > Edwin Booth.

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 11:05:20 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 septembre 2023 à 15:09:18 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:01:28 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 17:10:50 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > > > > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:

> > > > > > > > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > > > > > > > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > > > > > > > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > > > > > > > know its origin.
> > > > > > > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > > > > > > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > > > > > > of them are aware of the origins.
> > > > > > Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
> > > > > > buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
> > > > > > the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.
> > > > > My point is that based on one datum (me), I don't think you were right to say
> > > > > that "those who use the phrase may not even know its origin".
> > > > And some
> > > (...ignoramuses ...)
> > Bullcrap. Did you look at the Ngram?
> > > > have never encountered the phrase. As usual, bebe..
> > > > trafficks
> > > Oy!
> > Do you know that that's an example of a quasi-archaism? (Some
> > -ic words routinely retain the -k- with a front-vowel suffix.)
>
> Nouns, not verbs.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Where do you _get_ tis crap?

traffic trafficked trafficking trafficked (and, by analogy, trafficks)

> > > > in obsolete archaisms.
> > > Oy!
> > Did you look at the Ngram?
>
> At issue is the pleonasm.

Another obsolete archaism.

Did you look at the Ngram?

Have you changed your complaint from "dead metonym" or "dead metaphor"
to "dead pleonasm"? Maybe some day you'll reach something sensible
by leaps and bounds. And share it with your kith and kin.

> > > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wear+the+sock+and+buskin&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> > > >
> > > > There are so few occurrences it doesn't even offer links to time periods.
> > > >
> > > > Searching the phrase (in quotes) in GooBoo turns up one use as late
> > > > as 1912; anything more recent is a quotation, as in a biography of
> > > > Edwin Booth.

Le dimanche 24 septembre 2023 à 18:05:11 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 11:05:20 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > Le dimanche 24 septembre 2023 à 15:09:18 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:01:28 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 17:10:50 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > > > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > > > > > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > > > > > > > > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > > > > > > > > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > > > > > > > > know its origin.
> > > > > > > > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > > > > > > > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > > > > > > > of them are aware of the origins.
> > > > > > > Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
> > > > > > > buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
> > > > > > > the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.
> > > > > > My point is that based on one datum (me), I don't think you were right to say
> > > > > > that "those who use the phrase may not even know its origin".
> > > > > And some
> > > > (...ignoramuses ...)
> > > Bullcrap. Did you look at the Ngram?
> > > > > have never encountered the phrase. As usual, bebe..
> > > > > trafficks
> > > > Oy!
> > > Do you know that that's an example of a quasi-archaism? (Some
> > > -ic words routinely retain the -k- with a front-vowel suffix.)
> >
> > Nouns, not verbs.
> ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> Where do you _get_ tis crap?
>
> traffic trafficked trafficking trafficked

Yes, though all such verbs actually seem to be based on nouns: frolic,
panic, picnic, etc.

> (and, by analogy,

A daring euphemism! Why should there be an analogy?

> trafficks)
> > > > > in obsolete archaisms.
> > > > Oy!
> > > Did you look at the Ngram?
> >
> > At issue is the pleonasm.
> Another obsolete archaism.

? If an archaism is an obsolete usage, what do you call an obsolete
archaism?

> Did you look at the Ngram?

Yes, but it's irrelevant to the pleonasm issue.

> Have you changed your complaint from "dead metonym" or "dead metaphor"
> to "dead pleonasm"?

No, your pleonasm is alive and kicking - far be it from me to call it dead.

> Maybe some day you'll reach something sensible
> by leaps and bounds. And share it with your kith and kin.
> > > > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wear+the+sock+and+buskin&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> > > > >
> > > > > There are so few occurrences it doesn't even offer links to time periods.
> > > > >
> > > > > Searching the phrase (in quotes) in GooBoo turns up one use as late
> > > > > as 1912; anything more recent is a quotation, as in a biography of
> > > > > Edwin Booth.

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 2:12:34 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> Le dimanche 24 septembre 2023 à 18:05:11 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 11:05:20 AM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 24 septembre 2023 à 15:09:18 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:01:28 PM UTC-4, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 17:10:50 UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels a écrit :
> > > > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:01:37 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:35:53 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:
> > > > > > > > Le samedi 23 septembre 2023 à 05:47:45 UTC+2, Jerry Friedman a écrit :
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:20:36 AM UTC-6, Bebercito wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > By contrast, "wear the sock and buskin", for instance, is arguably a dead
> > > > > > > > > > metonymic phrase as actors today don't sport that footwear, unlike their
> > > > > > > > > > ancient Greek predecessors, and those who use the phrase may not even
> > > > > > > > > > know its origin.
> > > > > > > > > Strangely enough, I suspect it's the other way around. Those senses of
> > > > > > > > > "sock" and "buskin" are now known only to a few people, and probably most
> > > > > > > > > of them are aware of the origins.
> > > > > > > > Yes, by the definition of "dead" used in "dead metaphor", "wear the sock of
> > > > > > > > buskin" could be considered a dead metonymy, but not by the one given in
> > > > > > > > the article I linked to, which I relied on in my previous post.
> > > > > > > My point is that based on one datum (me), I don't think you were right to say
> > > > > > > that "those who use the phrase may not even know its origin".
> > > > > > And some
> > > > > (...ignoramuses ...)
> > > > Bullcrap. Did you look at the Ngram?
> > > > > > have never encountered the phrase. As usual, bebe..
> > > > > > trafficks
> > > > > Oy!
> > > > Do you know that that's an example of a quasi-archaism? (Some
> > > > -ic words routinely retain the -k- with a front-vowel suffix.)
> > > Nouns, not verbs.
> > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> > Where do you _get_ tihs crap?

> > traffic trafficked trafficking trafficked
>
> Yes, though all such verbs actually seem to be based on nouns: frolic,
> panic, picnic, etc.

So the hell what?

> > (and, by analogy,
>
> > daring euphemism! Why should there be an analogy?
> > trafficks)

You have never had even a first-year course in linguistics? If three of
the five "principal parts" (actually _only_ parts) of a verb are spelled
with k because of the following front vowel, then there is pattern pressure
to spell the other two accordingly.

> > > > > > in obsolete archaisms.
> > > > > Oy!
> > > > Did you look at the Ngram?
> > > At issue is the pleonasm.
> > Another obsolete archaism.
>
> ? If an archaism is an obsolete usage, what do you call an obsolete
> archaism?

Because you like to bitch about pleonasm.

> > Did you look at the Ngram?
>
> Yes, but it's irrelevant to the pleonasm issue.

Which is irrelevant to your adducing "sock and buskin" as an
example of -- I've no idea what.

> > Have you changed your complaint from "dead metonym" or "dead metaphor"
> > to "dead pleonasm"?
>
> No, your pleonasm is alive and kicking - far be it from me to call it dead.
>
> > Maybe some day you'll reach something sensible
> > by leaps and bounds. And share it with your kith and kin.
> > > > > > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wear+the+sock+and+buskin&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
> > > > > > There are so few occurrences it doesn't even offer links to time periods.
> > > > > > Searching the phrase (in quotes) in GooBoo turns up one use as late
> > > > > > as 1912; anything more recent is a quotation, as in a biography of
> > > > > > Edwin Booth.